Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to find the application non-receivable ratione materiae. At the time of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment, there was no final administrative decision that had direct legal consequences on the Appellant¡¯s terms of employment. In addition, in the intervening time, the Appellant has been selected for the post, and therefore, he has received that which he had sought originally, making his request for rescission of the contested decision moot. Regarding the request for compensation for the pay differential for 17 months, the Tribunal found because there was no appealable...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reversed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment finding that the Contested Decision was never implemented. Noting that the issue of mootness was raised for the first time on appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT explained (paras. 32-33): ¡°It is ordinarily impermissible to raise a new point on appeal that is not covered by the pleadings or was not canvassed in the evidence before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, unless the point is jurisdictional in nature. A question of jurisdiction may always be advanced on appeal for the first time. The reason for the jurisdictional exception is obvious. The principle of legality prohibits the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT from assuming a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Wu and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, despite it being a default judgment and the Secretary-General not having been allowed to participate in the proceedings or to file a reply. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae on the basis that he had not made a timely request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims in the application and those claims were not properly before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

The deadline for the Applicant¡¯s request for compensation for any alleged irregularity in the handling of his complaint of misconduct started on 27 June 2019 when he was notified of the outcome of the complaint. The 27 June 2019 notification rendered the decision resulting from the Applicant¡¯s complaint final and therefore reviewable under art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Consequently, the notification date starts the clock running for any challenge of such administrative decision. Under staff rule 11.2(c), the Applicant had 60 days to request management evaluation of the contested...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant never made any appeal or request to the ABCC for reconsideration of the impugned decision in accordance with art. 17(a) of former Appendix D and that the application was therefore not receivable ratione materiae on that count. The Tribunal concluded that since the 6 February 2019 email was not an appeal/request for reconsideration of the Respondent¡¯s decision, the only contestable decision was one dated 15 January 2019. The Applicant had 30 days to contest that decision by filing a request for reconsideration pursuant to art. 17(a) of former Appendix D but...

The Tribunal held that: the Applicant had not shown which terms of his appointment or which rules and regulations were violated by the Administration¡¯s failure to reclassify a post he coveted and to budget for it; that he had not shown that the classification process had been completed; and that he was challenging a final decision from that process as per the provisions of ST/AI/1998/9.

The Tribunal further held that the Applicant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed, that is, a final, precise decision taken by a competent authority having direct adverse...

The contested decision identified by the Applicant is not a final administrative decision that is related to the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment or contract of employment. It is an operational decision of general application that promoted a change in the reporting lines of all staff members serving in that organization. Such a decision is within the scope of the managerial discretion of the organization in question. Accordingly, the application is not receivable ratione materiae.

At the time of the contested decision to not investigate his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority into his separation from service and alleged blacklisting, the Applicant had been separated from service for more than four and a half years and was no longer a staff member in the strict sense. Therefore, for the application to be receivable, the contested decision must have a bearing on the Applicant¡¯s status as a former staff member in the sense that it affects his previous contractual rights. In determining whether the contested decision affects the Applicant¡¯s previous contractual...

The circumstances of the Applicant's severe illness, travel difficulties and the security issues in Sudan were all worthy considerations duly taken into account by the Organization during efforts made to accommodate the Applicant and achieve partial resolution as aforementioned. On receipt of the Applicant¡¯s management evaluation request, it was also within the discretion of the Respondent based on staff rule 11.2(c) to extend the 60- day deadline. That discretion, however, does not extend to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to waive the management evaluation request deadlines...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to find that it was not competent to consider the application as far as it concerned the decision not to award Ms Megerditchian a service contract since such contracts were awarded to non-staff members. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in receiving the application in respect of a service contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its interpretation of the term priority consideration and that a promise of priority consideration in a job application did not by itself give rise to a legal right on the part of Ms...